In S.C. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 23 CIV. 1266 (LGS), 2024 WL 3518522, 124 LRP 28367 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2024), the court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation that attorneys’ fees be awarded to a prevailing parent in a reduced amount following successful administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parent objected to the reduction.
The court applied the familiar factors governing fee awards, including “‘(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney’s customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.’” S.C., 2024 WL 3518522, at *2 (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 186 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008)).
With respect to hourly rates, the court concluded that the magistrate judge adequately considered the relevant factors and reasonably determined that the case was not novel or difficult. The report characterized affidavits from other IDEA practitioners as self-serving, found survey data on New York City attorney rates insufficient as to education law practitioners, and rejected a ChatGPT-4 compilation of rate information as not probative and unreliable. Instead, the magistrate judge relied on prior fee awards found reasonable for the specific attorneys involved, which were lower than the rates requested.
The court also rejected the argument that the fee reduction improperly penalized the parent because the defendant did not contest the administrative case. It noted that counsel billed 88.8 hours preparing for a hearing that lasted 2 hours and 43 minutes, and more than 20 hours preparing a closing brief after learning that the defendant would not present a case. In addition, the court applied the IDEA’s offer of settlement provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), observing that the defendant had offered $35,000 in fees and that the court ultimately awarded $34,397.99 for fees incurred through the date of the offer. The court entered a total fee award of $34,397.99 and rejected the parent’s request for $88,290.00.
Reductions from requested fee amounts are not unusual, although the magnitude of the reduction here may draw attention. The court’s discussion of artificial intelligence is also notable. Relying on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court observed that the ChatGPT response contained no probative information and cited a Second Circuit decision addressing AI fabrication of precedent. The magistrate judge stated: “In light of its propensity to fabricate information, ChatGPT, at least in its current iteration, should not be utilized to support a fee application.” S.C. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 23-CV-1266 (LGS) (JLC), 2024 WL 1447331, at *5 n.1, 124 LRP 10444 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2024).
The opinion underscores the court’s adherence to established fee-award principles while declining to credit AI-generated compilations as evidentiary support. Within the framework applied, the court treated both the billing record and the reliability of supporting materials as central to determining a reasonable award.